Standing Committee B

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Criminal Justice Bill

Hilary Benn: I beg to move,
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill the Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Tuesday 17th December at half-past Ten o'clock, do meet on that day at half-past Four o'clock, on Thursday 19th December at ten minutes past Nine o'clock, on Tuesday 7th January at half-past Four o'clock and thereafter on Tuesdays and Thursdays at ten minutes past Nine o'clock and half-past Two o'clock, except that the Committee shall not meet on Tuesday 18th February or Thursday 20th February;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2, Clauses 24 to 34, Clauses 36 to 48, Clause 62, Schedule 4, Clauses 63 to 97, Schedule 5, Clauses 98 to 119, Schedule 6, Clauses 120 to 162, Schedule 7, Clauses 163 to 169, Schedule 8, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 9, Clauses 175 to 199, Schedule 10, Clauses 200 to 204, Schedule 11, Clauses 205 to 209, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 210, Schedule 14, Clauses 211 to 219, Schedule 15, Clauses 220 to 242, Schedule 16, Clause 243, Schedule 17, Clause 244, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 245 to 248, Schedule 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clauses 252 to 258, Schedule 22, Clauses 259 to 261, Schedule 23, Clauses 262 to 264, Clause 35, Schedule 3, Clauses 49 to 61, Clauses 265 and 266, Schedule 25, Clause 267, Schedule 26, Clause 268, Schedule 24, Clauses 269 to 273, new Clauses, new Schedules;
(3) the proceedings on Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2 and Clauses 24 to 34 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 9th January 2003;
(4) the proceedings on Clauses 36 to 48 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday 14th January 2003;
(5) the proceedings on Clause 62, Schedule 4, Clauses 63 to 97, Schedule 5, Clauses 98 to 119, Schedule 6 and Clauses 120 to 125 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday 28th January 2003;
(6) the proceedings on Clauses 126 to 162, Schedule 7, Clauses 163 to 169, Schedule 8, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 9, Clauses 175 to 199, Schedule 10 and Clauses 200 to 203 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Tuesday 4th February 2003;
(7) the proceedings on Clause 204, Schedule 11, Clauses 205 to 209, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 210, Schedule 14, Clauses 211 to 219, Schedule 15, Clauses 220 to 242, Schedule 16, Clause 243, Schedule 17, Clause 244, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 245 to 248, Schedule 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clauses 252 to 258, Schedule 22, Clauses 259 to 261, Schedule 23 and Clauses 262 to 264 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 13th February 2003;
(8) the remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Thursday 27th February 2003.
 It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I can think of no better qualification for chairing our deliberations than being a graduate of Leeds university. I note that you list as one of your recreations going to the gymnasium. I fear that the burdens of the Bill might impinge on how much time you can spend there, but I hope that we will compensate by providing lively and productive debates. 
 As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we are ready to listen to those who can contribute to improving the Bill. We are grateful for the contribution already made by the Home Affairs Committee. We will reflect on the Committee's arguments, and we will listen to points raised by all hon. Members. Looking around the Room, I am conscious of the experience and expertise of Committee members, which will I am sure will make for useful and instructive deliberations. However, I wish to make clear our strong commitment to reforming the criminal justice system, which is the reason for the Bill. It is important that we always keep in mind the reasons for that reform, which we explored in some depth in what was agreed to be an extremely good Second Reading debate—a point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). 
 It is a long and complex Bill. The programme motion is challenging, and we may find ourselves pushed for time, but I hope that we will be able to conduct our business efficiently and effectively, exposing and bringing to light the key issues. I will happy to discuss issues relating to the Bill outside the Committee if it is helpful. The Government have already tabled a number of technical amendments. If we intend tabling amendments of substance, it will be my practice to write to all members of the Committee to explain our reasoning. I should be happy to meet Opposition spokesmen to discuss those amendments if they would find it helpful.

Simon Hughes: The Minister's offer is welcome and will be accepted. I hope he agrees that, unless Government amendments have the agreement of Opposition parties, the Government should not table lots of amendments; we will not be able to stick to the programme if they do. The Government have already tabled some amendments. They have had ages to get the Bill right, and I hope that they do not feel that they have to keep on amending it, but they should always give us injury time if they do.

Hilary Benn: The answer to that comment—

Graham Allen: Before my hon. Friend gets too far into his answer, I hope that he will consider it carefully. If there are difficulties with the Bill, it would make a lot of sense for the Government to table further amendments. Indeed, that was the undertaking given by the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House. The last thing we want is for the Bill to leave Committee if it is not in good order.

Hilary Benn: That was a typically helpful intervention. My hon. Friend took the words right out of my mouth. The straight truth is that we shall have to see how we go; but I hear what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) says.
 I commend the motion to the Committee.

Dominic Grieve: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I echo the Minister's comments and hope that the Committee will be productive. The Opposition certainly intend to do all they can to ensure that it is and that our discussions
 are sufficient, without becoming long-winded, to do justice to this immensely important Bill. This is probably the most important Bill in this Session and may turn out to be one of the most important in this Parliament.
 To pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He said that the Bill did not need not amending, but it may well do; indeed, I would hope and expect us to table amendments to improve it if we are to continue in the spirit in which we have embarked on this process. 
 Equally, I accept that the Government may need to table amendments—indeed, they already have. I have no problem with that, unless the timetable limits our ability to discuss amendments properly. As I told the Minister informally, and as I said in the Programming Sub-Committee, there is a willingness to make sensible progress and to consider the Bill carefully, but if it becomes clear that we need more time because of the number of amendments, more time will have to be allotted. 
 That is how debate on the Bill should proceed. We have a framework, which we shall try to observe, and we may sometimes move faster than it allows, although experience suggests that that will not happen often. However, if the Government start amending the Bill heavily—there are already premonitory signs that they will be free with the drafting—we will have to ensure that we have enough time to do justice to the provisions. 
 I shall not take up the Committee's time any further on preliminary matters. I note with interest that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has tabled several amendments to the programme motion, and I am interested to hear his views and to understand what he seeks to do.

David Heath: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I also welcome your co-Chairman, who will join our proceedings in due course.
 As everyone has said, the Bill is substantial and will require much careful scrutiny. As was said on Second Reading, the Committee will be able to reach consensus on much of the Bill, although that does not avoid the necessity for careful scrutiny. At other times, however, there will be anything but consensus. Instead, there will be vigorous debate, although I hope that it will be constructive. 
 Hon. Members have misconstrued the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He was at pains to say that he sought to avoid Government amendments that did not enjoy at least broad agreement among Opposition parties. In other words, we seek from the Minister an assurance that there will be no nasty surprises and that any new gimmick that the Home Office conceives of will not be added to the Bill without time to consider it with sufficient care.

Dominic Grieve: Of course I understand that. The pattern of legislative scrutiny that has supposedly
 evolved envisages the early publication of Bills—that did not happen in this case, although we had a White Paper—and therefore a measure of predictability. I heartily endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that it would be most undesirable for the Bill to be completely rewritten halfway through our proceedings, and for a new format and new ideas to be introduced.

David Heath: That is precisely the point that my hon. Friend sought to make, and he expressed himself perfectly clearly. Too often, new clauses are introduced at a late stage and do not receive adequate scrutiny. That usually results in the creation of bad law, and we should avoid that. The crucial word is flexibility. We have had welcome assurances from the Programming Sub-Committee that the Government are prepared to reconsider the timetable if necessary. I hope that the Minister will hold to that during our proceedings.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that in proceedings on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, more than 300 Government amendments and some 20 new clauses were debated after Second Reading. Does he agree that that should not happen in this case?

David Heath: I entirely agree. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered that Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey did that while I debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which was also rewritten by the Government as they went along—and then they completely reconstructed it in the House of Lords and it was a much better Bill as a result. I do not want to delay the hon. Member for Nottingham, North who is waiting to speak. I hope that we shall have constructive discussions and that the Minister will, as he has said that he will, listen carefully to our points, because we seek to improve the Bill, not to destroy it.

Graham Allen: I welcome the assurances of the Home Secretary and of my hon. Friend the Minister that the debate will be conducted openly, so that proper amendments can be tabled. If people operate along those lines, we shall enhance the Bill. The quid pro quo is that hon. Members should be disciplined in addressing specific issues and not waste time. I say that because the programme motion is trying to squeeze not a quart but several gallons into a pint pot. Because the Bill is so large and we have little time, the Committee might have to be prepared to have Wednesday and late-night sittings in order to discuss it properly.
 The provisions of the Bill will be with us for 20-odd years, so I should have hoped that a few more weeks of discussion could have been squeezed in to ensure thorough scrutiny; that is Parliament's job. The Bill is 150 pages long. If we are to have 30 sittings, that is five pages per sitting, or 10 pages a day. If we consider 10 pages today, we shall reach the end of the provisions relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We shall have to work very quickly to get there. 
 I do not criticise anybody on the Committee or connected with the Bill. There is an institutional weight in Whitehall that forces us to deal inadequately with Bills, regardless of party, of the Opposition view or of anybody's opinions on particular issues. Parliament is forced, unwillingly, to examine statutes. It gives a new meaning to the term ''statutory rape''—that is what happens continually, because of the way in which we are forced to deal with Bills. Governments—not just the current one—have become repeat offenders: they have a lot of previous to take into account. I hope that we can assist in their rehabilitation, and look to the Minister to help us to proceed productively and constructively. 
 The programme allows no time for pre-legislative scrutiny. That means that, other than through the brave and brief effort of the Home Affairs Committee, we shall not benefit from the experience of front-line police officers, probation officers, victims and witnesses who could bring a great deal to our proceedings. My constituents are concerned about the nuts and bolts issues in the Bill, which deals with major issues of civil liberty. 
 My local police inspector, a person I know who has been intimidated and who will not therefore give evidence, the Home Secretary and several other people who could have given evidence in an impartial, open forum, pre-legislatively, would have aided our work. I am not giving away any secrets when I say that already we are thinking about slight changes as a result of the experience that certain hon. Members have brought to bear, even before consideration of the Bill has got under way. 
 The Bill is not politically as adept as it might have been. It is an important Bill for the Government, and we could have drawn in far more people and gained their understanding of what we want to achieve. We have missed that chance. 
 Now that we have been pushed by the machine into this sausage-making process, this ritual, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure the Committee that this is the last time that a Bill of such significance will be dealt with in this way. Given that we now have carry-over and pre-legislative scrutiny, such a measure should in future be given a significant amount of time for scrutiny before coming to Standing Committee. He knows well that Bills are now being prepared in the Home Office for presentation after the next Queen's Speech. I hope that those responsible will, with the Leader of the House, timetable proceedings so that this time next year hon. Members, perhaps on this Committee, will participate in a pre-legislative process, enabling Bills to be dealt with properly. I hope that he will take that to heart and comment on it.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are very supportive of his approach on these matters. Is he aware that in some European Union countries it is completely normal for any proposed Government Bill to be presented first in draft form to
 Parliament? The measure is always then sent to the equivalent of a Special Standing Committee, for the taking of evidence, after which it is dealt with procedurally in the House, and goes through its normal stages.

Graham Allen: I hope that that will be our process by this time next year. As I have said, I hope that no one thinks that I am casting aspersions on the Committee or any of its members. We are the victims of the current process, which has only just been changed, and clearly we could not have dealt with the Bill as I should have liked. However, next year we shall not have that excuse.

Marsha Singh: Does my hon. Friend accept that, inadequate though it may have been, there has been some pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Home Affairs Committee?

Graham Allen: I have paid tribute to the work of the Home Affairs Committee, and some of my amendments reflect work that it did. However, five or six sittings on a Bill of 150 pages cannot be adequate.

Vera Baird: Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed a report that also amounted to an element of pre-legislative scrutiny. That should be available later in the week.

Graham Allen: That is excellent. I welcome that news and hope that the report will enter into our work on the Bill. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will raise the relevant points that will arise.
 As a layman, not a lawyer, attempting to get to grips with the Bill on behalf of my constituents, I must, like other hon. Members, wade through parliamentary drafting and legalese, which make things extremely difficult. However, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the matter of cross-referencing in the Bill. One needs four pairs of hands just to hold all the Bills that are necessary for reading across and back to see what provisions are being amended. That results in a much more difficult process for parliamentarians trying to do an honest, conscientious job of improving the Bill. 
 That is at the front end of the task. At the back end, we want police officers, probation officers and magistrates courts staff, as well as people who are the subject of the law, to understand what on earth we are doing, and the laws that we are passing. It is impossible for them—even the most articulate and capable people—to comprehend what we will ultimately produce. We need to start producing readable legislation. Perhaps you could take that point back to the Chairmen's Panel, Mr. Illsley. The issue concerns individuals: victims, witnesses and so on. They cannot access the Bill as it is now written, particularly because of the problem of obscure cross-referencing. 
 On clarity, the Bill says somewhere that the courts shall explain to the accused in ordinary language. Maybe we should start to explain matters to parliamentarians and others in ordinary language, so that those of us who take our job seriously can 
 understand what is going through the Government's mind and what is being deliberated on in Committee. 
 The White Paper was a model of its kind: superbly crafted, well put together and eminently readable, as a Bill should be. If all such documents could be like that, it would be an achievement. It mentioned the need for clarity and accountability. Again, however, we have missed the chance to do some of the basics. On courts, for example, people are absolutely mystified by the difference between the High Court and a Crown court. Why, for example, do we not refer to the regional criminal court rather than the Crown court? Why do we refer to a magistrates bench rather than a local court? Why do we not try to let people understand their own justice system? 
 I believe that the Bill is excellent, and that the programme motion does the best that it can in the circumstances, but I think that it will be extremely difficult to get through without additional time. However, I commend the Government for having put the Bill together. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use the process as a way of explaining the criminal justice system, not only to hon. Members but above all to members of the public, who depend on us to get things right.

Humfrey Malins: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and I echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.
 The Minister said that we might be pushed for time. That is the reality of the situation. Over the years, time for deliberation in Committee has become shorter and shorter and shorter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was extremely active in debates on the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That Bill had 121 clauses, and we had some 55 hours in Committee. The current Bill has 273 clauses and 26 schedules. If we were even to have the same amount of time proportionately, we would need 130 hours in Committee to do it justice. We will get only about 65, which is probably half what we need. Conservative Members will not be filibustering, but there are big issues that need to be looked at in detail. 
 The hon. Member for Nottingham, North was right to say that everything in the House is so rushed nowadays. I am sure that every Government and Opposition Member feels the same. We hurry from A to B, and are never able to spend more than a minute or two on topics that require much more time. A Bill is published. No sooner does one have a chance to look at it than it has a Second Reading. As soon as the Second Reading has taken place, the Committee is set up almost instantly. There then follows an extraordinary rush in which one tries to draft amendments right up to the last moment. The non-governmental organisations are under huge pressure. One often drafts amendments late at night in order to submit them just in time, perhaps having received the relevant paperwork only an hour before. That is no way to proceed.

David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is made even more difficult by the concurrence of so many Bills from the Home Office and the Lord
 Chancellor's Department? Nine Bills in substantive or draft form are too many for people who need to give them adequate attention to be able to do so.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are important Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department Bills currently in the other place, which we do not have time even to look at. There is a wealth of experience on the Government side of the Committee, including distinguished members of the Home Affairs Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) have a distinguished legal background. I wonder whether they agree that there should have been more time to get to grips with the detail of the Bill and to think through the amendments.
 The procedure of a Standing Committee hearing evidence is a good one, but yet again we are rushed. We will all be up against the clock, day after day, trying to get our amendments drafted in time. It has been suggested that we may have to sit for longer, and I would be thrilled to sit through the night whenever necessary. I hope that I do not regret saying that—I often say things like that—but I sense from the Minister's response that he will approach the matter carefully and sensibly and will involve us in the discussions. 
 As I said earlier, we do not want to have to deal with more than 300 Government amendments. We would like the Minister to give plenty of advance notice of anything that he is going to do to change the Bill. 
 I had better withdraw my comment about sitting late into the night in case it haunts me, but I make my point about our inability to get to grips with matters. I hope that in the course of the next few weeks we will not feel so pressurised by outside constraints that we cannot get across the sensible and constructive additions, alterations and amendments that we want to make to the Bill. 
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Resolved, 
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill the Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Tuesday 17th December at half-past Ten o'clock, do meet on that day at half-past Four o'clock, on Thursday 19th December at ten minutes past Nine o'clock, on Tuesday 7th January at half-past Four o'clock and thereafter on Tuesdays and Thursdays at ten minutes past Nine 
o'clock and half-past Two o'clock, except that the Committee shall not meet on Tuesday 18th February or Thursday 20th February;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2, Clauses 24 to 34, Clauses 36 to 48, Clause 62, Schedule 4, Clauses 63 to 97, Schedule 5, Clauses 98 to 119, Schedule 6, Clauses 120 to 162, Schedule 7, Clauses 163 to 169, Schedule 8, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 9, Clauses 175 to 199, Schedule 10, Clauses 200 to 204, Schedule 11, Clauses 205 to 209, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 210, Schedule 14, Clauses 211 to 219, Schedule 15, Clauses 220 to 242, Schedule 16, Clause 243, Schedule 17, Clause 244, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 245 to 248, Schedule 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clauses 252 to 258, Schedule 22, Clauses 259 to 261, Schedule 23, Clauses 262 to 264, Clause 35, Schedule 3, Clauses 49 to 61, Clauses 265 and 266, Schedule 25, Clause 267, Schedule 26, Clause 268, Schedule 24, Clauses 269 to 273, new Clauses, new Schedules;{**w43**} 
 (3) the proceedings on Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2 and Clauses 24 to 34 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 9th January 2003;
(4) the proceedings on Clauses 36 to 48 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday 14th January 2003;
(5) the proceedings on Clause 62, Schedule 4, Clauses 63 to 97, Schedule 5, Clauses 98 to 119, Schedule 6 and Clauses 120 to 125 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday 28th January 2003;
(6) the proceedings on Clauses 126 to 162, Schedule 7, Clauses 163 to 169, Schedule 8, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 9, Clauses 175 to 199, Schedule 10 and Clauses 200 to 203 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Tuesday 4th February 2003;
(7) the proceedings on Clause 204, Schedule 11, Clauses 205 to 209, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 210, Schedule 14, Clauses 211 to 219, Schedule 15, Clauses 220 to 242, Schedule 16, Clause 243, Schedule 17, Clause 244, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 245 to 248, Schedule 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clauses 252 to 258, Schedule 22, Clauses 259 to 261, Schedule 23 and Clauses 262 to 264 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 13th February 2003;
(8) the remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Thursday 27th February 2003.

Eric Illsley: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that as a general rule adequate notice should be given of amendments. My co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.Clause 1 Extension of powers to stop and search

Clause 1 - Extension of powers to stop and search

Graham Allen: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in
clause 1, page 1, line 
7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) In section 1(7) of the 1984 Act (prohibited articles) at the end of sub-paragraph (b)(ii) there is inserted ''; and
(iii) an article used in the commission of an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property).''.'.

Eric Illsley: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 27, in
clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
'but only insofar as the article was intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.'.
 No. 1, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end add—
'(f) an offence under section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 (going equipped for stealing etc.)
(g) an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (robbery).'.

Graham Allen: I am sure that the Minister did not intend any discourtesy in not replying to several points that I made and I therefore voted in favour of the programme motion. I am sure that he will take the chance to put on record the answers to some of my points.
 I am very much in favour of the clause. The inference that my constituents and others can draw is that the Government are serious about helping those who suffer criminal damage to themselves or their property. Criminal damage is often used to prevent people from giving evidence in the courts, supporting their neighbours and assisting their communities. We suffer from that all too much in my constituency. 
 This is yet another example of cross-referencing, although one needs only two hands to figure out what the clause means. Reference is made to other Acts. Difficult as it is for us to come to terms with that, it will be hard for people outside to interpret the sensible and sound meaning that the Government are trying to bring into the law here. Again, rather than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I hope that the Government will look again at trying to make this process and its wording more accurate and clearer so that those we are trying to help can understand that we are trying to help them and how we are doing it. 
 The clause extends the powers to stop and search. It is important that the Government explain why. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will do that. This is a probing amendment to ensure that we are clear about why stop and search is extended from an actual offence of criminal damage to a prospective offence. My constituents think of spray cans and other items that are used to vandalise properties and to deter witnesses from attending court, so we are pleased that the police will have the ability to take action against some of those offenders and help law-abiding citizens in my constituency.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue. I fully understand why the Government have attempted to tackle that issue by amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As I understand it, the intention behind the Government's proposals is to include objects that might be used to destroy or damage property as a legitimate ground for search and seizure. The amendment would widen the scope of prohibited articles. The problem is that PACE splits the articles that may be seized into two categories.
 Section 1(6) states: 
''If in the course of such a search a constable discovers an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be a stolen or prohibited article or an article to which subsection (8A) below applies, he may seize it.''
 Subsection (7) continues: 
''An article is prohibited . . . if it is-
(a) an offensive weapon; or
(b) an article-
(i) made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence to which this sub-paragraph applies, or
(ii) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''
 The offences to which paragraph (b)(i) applies are burglary, theft, motor vehicle taking or obtaining property by deception. 
 I should like to remind myself for a moment of past practice in the Crown court, when I appeared there prosecuting or defending. My understanding of the drafting of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although it is not always easy to follow, is that, first, it categorised certain items as offence weapons, and I do not think that anyone has a problem with that because the categories are well defined. Secondly, it includes articles made or adapted for use in the course of particular offences, such as jemmies for burglary and various articles that we know from experience are likely to be used, in the course of theft, for taking vehicles, such as car keys and other devices that can be used to unlock disabling mechanisms. 
 The problem with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that almost any item can be used to do criminal damage, including, I suppose, this volume of ''Archbold''. If someone with a greenhouse wants me to demonstrate how it could be used for such a purpose, I would not have too much difficulty. We must be careful about what we are trying to achieve.

Humfrey Malins: Grievous bodily harm.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed, I am confident that it could be used for that purpose, too. In fact, together with its annexe and volume on appeal cases, it would constitute a lethal weapon.
 Have we got this right or have we gone too far? Spray cans were mentioned during the debate, and everyone knows about the propensity to use spray cans for writing graffiti, but the clause is drafted in such a way that it could cover virtually any item. I should be interested to hear how a definition could be worded so as to prevent someone from being harassed by the police and from having virtually any item on them removed because it could be used to commit criminal damage. Although I applaud the ingenuity and diligence of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, the amendment would make the matter even more serious, because it would not only introduce a category of weapon but would prohibit people from carrying such an item at all. That seems to verge on unreason.

Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman help me? Let me talk about witness intimidation. Many people who roll up at the Old Bailey think of witness intimidation in terms of east end gangland. Intimidation is rife, but it is no longer connected with big armed robberies. It is carried out by kids who break antisocial behaviour orders and gangs who intimidate people on street corners. Such people go equipped, not necessarily to
 break someone's kneecaps, but continually to spray their house with ''scum'' or ''grass''—or other words that I would be brought to order for using—in a persistent attempt to break down and stress out those people who act as witnesses and who are trying to keep their communities law-abiding.
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help me. I understand and respect the point that he is making, but does he understand the viewpoint of the victims in such situations? Will he help the Committee to formulate amendments that will offer a hand to those people? Members of the legal profession do not seem inclined to discuss the issue in their own terms and have completely lost touch with all the individuals who depend on the criminal justice system.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. There is always a danger that the legal profession will make arguments so abstruse that they no longer meet the common-sense requirements of the public. I am aware of that and do not intend it to happen. I make it clear that the amendments that I tabled are essentially probing amendments.
 I can guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we shall end up with a number of problems if we frame the legislation in a way that is unworkable in practice. There might be challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998. People might ask, ''Why am I being prevented from carrying a perfectly lawful item that I need?'' There will be issues related to proof, and to what juries or magistrates will be prepared to decide on the facts. The hon. Gentleman will not secure his objective. 
 The key question is not whether we want to stop people who want to spray-paint people's houses going around with spray cans, or those with half-bricks or any other item in their pockets that they want to throw through people's windows. The hon. Gentleman may agree with me that virtually any item can be used for the purpose of criminal damage—chewing gum can be used to bung up a keyhole if one does it well enough. The definition is very broad. The question is therefore whether the definition will in practice be confined to certain items. If it will, should we focus on those items, rather than on the generic term of any item that could be used to destroy or damage property? 
 The question arises of whether there should at least be evidence of intent by a person to use an item for the purpose of committing criminal damage. I seek to address that question with amendments Nos. 27 and 1. The objection to that, which I can understand, is that far too difficult a test would be put in the way. Having to prove intent will fetter every policeman's ability to stop people and remove such items. Against that, I venture that if a policeman stops someone with a spray can in a bag, that person may be someone who intends to respray his car, which has suffered slight damage in a motor accident, or he may be a 15-year-old who intends to spray graffiti. I would think that on the whole it should be possible to infer the defendant's intention from the surrounding circumstances—and possibly from their previous track record. 
 Although I will listen carefully to the Minister, I can foresee the danger that the provisions as currently 
 framed constitute a catch-all to almost any item that people may have in their possession. The items that in my experience feature in the list of offences that are currently under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 enjoy a much narrower definition.

Stephen Hesford: Is not the hon. Gentleman conflating two situations? There is the substantive offence of going equipped, for which an intention is needed. However, the provisions simply deal with stop-and-search—a precursor—not with convicting anyone of an offence. The added burden of intention is therefore unnecessary.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, heaven knows, the issue of stopping and searching people has been the subject of perennial debate in the House. Back in the 1980s, when I was the candidate for a seat that included Brixton, a community there that felt that the police oppressed it in the exercise of their powers said that the policy of stop-and-search in the streets and the way in which it was implemented was a precipitant of rioting. That view appeared to be reinforced by a number of enquiries that followed. There was a time—it is interesting to see how times change—when members of the hon. Gentleman's party loudly denounced the abuse of stop-and-search powers. My recollection, however, is that the official Opposition took a rather more robust view, and the Liberal Democrats may even have shared the Government's views. The issue certainly raises difficult questions about a subject's liberty, and I fully acknowledged that it must be addressed carefully.
 All I am saying is that we are extending powers from the readily identifiable objects that most police officers look for when they stop and search someone, to potentially any item that someone may have in their pockets. That is a problem, and the Committee should at least think about it, rather than simply saying, ''Oh, this is wonderful. Let's move on to the next clause.''

Marsha Singh: I get the impression from the hon. Gentleman that the police are going to go on a stop-and-search rampage to take from people everything that they are carrying. In my constituency, however, the police know the troublemakers—the kids on the street who harass old people. They also know what they carry with them and what they do. I hope that the police will operate on the basis of reasonable suspicions and reasonable grounds; otherwise, they will be challenged. However, the clause is not a major problem, because the police will not go on a rampage against people's civil rights. They will, however, have an extra power to prevent the harassment of old and young people in my constituency, and they know who is responsible.

Dominic Grieve: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but let me take him back to the wording of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is not easy to follow so, at the risk of repetition, I shall read from it again. Section 1(7) prohibits offensive weapons per se, so we need not worry about that. However, it also prohibits
''an article . . . made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence . . . or . . . intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''
 That is the very phrase that I lifted for the purposes of amendment No. 27, so the hon. Gentleman will understand where I am coming from. I have not dreamt that category up out of nowhere; it already features in the Act. The Government have decided—as I said, I shall listen carefully to the Minister—that they do not wish to use that category. As I understand it, they want to use a category of objects that are made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence. This volume of ''Archbold'' could, however, be adapted for the purposes of criminal damage. So, too, could a spray can, even though it is perfectly legitimate for someone to have one if they are repainting a vehicle. We could go through an endless list of items that could be made or adapted. 
 We are widening the category significantly and moving a long way from the sort of items that one would recognise as being used in burglary, theft, and vehicle taking. The obvious items that one would need to obtain property by deception are false credit cards, and a conman's apparatus would include bits of paper and the other items. If the police picked him up, they would find those items in his pocket and realise that he needed them to copy people's credit cards. They would, therefore, confiscate them. 
 We are introducing measures that go very wide, and I simply ask the Minister—I do not want to labour the point on amendment No. 27—whether we should include the notion of intention. It would not prevent police officers from stopping and searching the known graffiti sprayer or the local hoodlum who puts bricks through people's windows. Nor would it prevent them from confiscating certain items. They would have little difficulty in court demonstrating intent or that they had justifiable grounds for seizing an item. However, the wording of the Bill is wide open to interpretation.

Marsha Singh: If my greenhouse windows had been broken by law books time and again, and the hon. Gentleman were loitering on the corner of my street with a sackful of law books, would it not be reasonable for the police to suspect that he might be using them in an illegal manner? That would be covered, because it would be reasonable to suspect that.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely.

Humfrey Malins: Six months.

Dominic Grieve: That might be regarded as rather too kind to me. I would fall squarely foul of the clause as amended by amendment No. 27. Let us suppose that I walk down Fleet street to my barristers chambers and am stopped by a police officer who finds a copy of ''Archbold''. The police officer has moved force in the hope of greater money in the Metropolitan police, remembers that there was at least one occasion when a copy of ''Archbold'' was thrown through someone's greenhouse in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), and decides to confiscate mine. That is an important point, but I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response.

Simon Hughes: This is not an ''Archbold'' point but a graffiti can point. I want to establish that that case
 would be unfair. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that someone nicked with a can of spray paint would not be carrying, under the logical interpretation of the present law, something made or adapted for a criminal offence? It could be used for a criminal offence, but it would not have been made or adapted for it. Unless one is to extend the law hugely, which would be completely illogical, the only way in which one could regard that as something that could be used in a criminal offence is to add intent. Otherwise, there can be no way to distinguish between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Dominic Grieve: I agree. That is why we tabled amendment No. 27. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for distilling the argument so succinctly. The way in which the Government have drafted the clause seems to allow any item to be seized in circumstances that could go to the absurd. That is what concerns me, but the Minister may be able to provide reassurance.

Graham Allen: The last thing that I want to do is to get involved in legalisms, especially with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who has made a living out of them, but I am interested in the reference to items made for the commission of an offence. We could argue about a kitchen knife, for example.
 We must be careful on this spray paint issue. The vision of young people spray-painting butterflies on the underground is a million miles from what such items can do to people. Repeated spraying is intended to break people and to prevent people from giving evidence against, say, someone else's big brother. Bricks go through greenhouse windows over and again, every time the panes are repaired, until the owner decides not to go to court. 
 Far be it from me to give advice to the Conservative party, but the clause is about the extension of powers to stop and search. What does that mean to ordinary people? What do they want from the law in those circumstances? Perhaps the ordinary people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield are different from those in mine and, I suspect, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. Our people want reassurance that we are addressing their concerns about the low-level, sustained and stressful intimidation that can take place with commonplace household objects. I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues will start to address some of the concerns of those people as we consider the Bill, otherwise his party may appear irrelevant to the concerns of the electorate.

Dominic Grieve: At the risk of repeating myself, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I resent the innuendo that I or my constituents do not share his concern about antisocial behaviour and crime. It is a calumny; it is absurd; and it is untrue. I, too, am concerned that the criminal justice system should work effectively. As I explained to him earlier, if we pass and implement legislation that is unworkable, he will not get the benefits that he wants from the Bill—and indeed that the Government want.
 My concern, when floating my amendments, and in considering the hon. Gentleman's proposals—I hope that the Minister will respond carefully to what he said—was to try to ensure, when extending the category of items that can be seized in stop and search to include those that could be used, made or adapted for use in criminal damage, as they are all likely to be capable of being adapted, that we should provide some guidelines or criteria about what we want police officers to take from people. 
 Otherwise, the risk—it always happens, however well-intentioned the police may be—is that people will say that they have been treated unjustly and can prove it. When that happens, the legislation starts to be brought into disrepute. It then ceases to achieve the desired object. Heaven knows, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey lives in an area, which I know, and represents an area that is not exactly free from the consequences of criminal damage and antisocial behaviour. I applaud the fact that he appears to be on the same wavelength on this issue, and I urge other hon. Members to understand it. I might add that my constituency has areas of serious social deprivation and areas where criminal damage is rife. That causes me great concern and, so far as possible, I wish to see it stamped out. We shall not achieve that by passing bad legislation.

Paul Stinchcombe: The clause as drafted simply adds an additional category of offence. Those offences could be committed only if there was an intention or sufficient mens rea—in which case, does the hon. Gentleman believe that amendment No. 27 is necessary?

Dominic Grieve: Well, is that right? I think we should wait for the Minister to tell us about that. It may be a misreading on my part; I do not claim any sort of guru status in my understanding of the inner workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I looked at it before drafting the amendment, and the hon. Gentleman is probably looking at it now. Section 1(7) provides for three categories of prohibited articles. They are: ''an offensive weapon''; an article
''made or adapted for use in course of or in connection with an offence'',
 or an article 
''intended by the person having it with him for such use by him''.
 As I understand it, the Bill will amend the 1984 Act to put this item on criminal damage in subsection (8), which is that to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies. That means that an article must merely be shown to be 
''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence''.
 I infer from that that intent does not have to be shown. That is why I tabled the amendment. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will tell me and put me out of my misery. However, I do not think that I am wrong, or he would have interrupted me sooner so that we could move on to something else.

Hilary Benn: Intent is something that the police officer could take into account when deciding whether he has reasonable suspicion, which is a precursor to the operation of all stop and search powers. He has the power to take it into account when deciding whether
 to stop and search. I would have said in response to the debate that I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's point but that the amendment is not necessary.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with him. The word between subsection (7)(b)(i) and (ii) is the little word ''or'', not the little word ''and''. It seems that a police officer would be entitled to stop and search simply on the basis that an item was made or adapted for use in, ''or'' in connection with, an offence. Could a spray-can be adapted for use in an offence? It is certainly usable in the course of an offence. I hope that the Minister can clear that matter up.
 The amendments are in some ways an attempt to widen the scope of the provision, because I am broadly in support of what the Government want to do. Amendment No. 1 gives the Committee the opportunity to consider whether we should add to the provision items connected with going equipped for stealing or with robbery. I simply invite the Committee to consider that: why stop at criminal damage? 
 The categories in subsection (8) are confined at present to burglary, theft, the taking of motor vehicles and obtaining property by deception. If we are interested in broadening the categories, and are to add criminal damage, why should we not, for instance, in view of the problems of street robbery experienced in most constituencies, include that too? I see that the Minister wants to contradict me.

Hilary Benn: I rise only to assist the hon. Gentleman. It may be helpful if I tell him that, in relation to theft, the current definition includes items that might be made, adapted or intended for use in committing either robbery or going equipped for stealing. In other words, the current definition covers his sensible point.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister; that solves that problem, and on that basis, I have spoken enough. I want only to say in finishing that I could not understand amendment No. 67, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, but as it has not been selected I shall perhaps cast a delicate veil over it and ignore it. I shall, however, ask the Committee to consider carefully how we go about constructing the provision on criminal damage, so that it is not drawn so widely as to become unworkable. If the Minister can reassure me on that I can assure him that our amendments were intended only to initiate debate to ensure that we get the measure right.

Graham Allen: To clarify amendment No. 67, which was to incorporate offences in relation to hunting, it has been superseded by events in the House—

Eric Illsley: Order. Amendment No. 67 has not been selected and is not in order for debate.

Simon Hughes: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I am happy to be on the Committee. I was just reflecting that the Solicitor-General and I are the only members of the Committee who were in the House when the
 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was passed—I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who I now recall was also here. I was not responsible for our response to that Bill, but it was very important, and as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it followed events including the Brixton riots and inquiries.
 Stop and search is an important and sensitive issue—particularly sensitive in communities of mixed race and ethnic backgrounds. When we consider what we should do, we need principles and an understanding of the background. My first point is simple: we should never have any law unless it is really justified. As a liberal, I believe that the fewer powers the state has, the better; the fewer laws we have, the better; and the fewer things that are illegal, the better. Of course we must keep up with changing practices, but I am against the presumption that it is necessary to make knives illegal because they could be used for wrong purposes—knives have perfectly proper purposes—or to make it illegal to carry garden items in the street. I start from the presumption that it is important to maximise the liberty of the individual and to minimise the power of the state. 
 I also take the view that it is right to maximise the liberty of the individual and minimise the powers of the police. They are not agents of the state. They are independent, but they need only the power sufficient to do their job, and not more. I shall always be sceptical about proposals for more police powers. I should have to hear an overwhelming case for that before I could be persuaded to sign up to it. 
 We need to understand not only the relevant words but the intention behind and motivation for the provision. My understanding is that the proposal concerns criminal damage only, being designed to give the police more powers to pre-empt antisocial behaviour and stop it escalating into lower-level criminal damage because of items that people carry around. 
 I share other hon. Members' understanding of the motive for the proposal and I do not dissent from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I do not dissent from including criminal damage in general terms, as in the two examples given by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. The Minister reassured us that such examples will be included; going equipped to rob is part of a panoply of items, as is whether the police should have powers to stop and search.

Marsha Singh: We would all like to agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about fewer laws, but does he accept that there was a time when people could control troublemakers within their communities, because they were smaller and more local and people knew each other better, but we now live in different times and community controls, especially in urban areas, have largely broken down? We need more laws to deal with the changed situation.

Simon Hughes: We could have a long debate about that, as I am not sure that it is true. I do not know that we now live in more lawless days than those of 19th-century London recorded in the novels of Dickens. I
 think that those days were probably more lawless, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. Although to some extent family life has broken down, and in some places the sense of belonging to a community, in other places it is still very strong. I accept that people move more and therefore their allegiance to a community may be weaker—and because they move more, they are not as easily identified.
 Of course, in our society people often take less responsibility for their community. They do not intervene, but stand back and say, ''It's nothing to do with me.'' I am not one of those people; I get stuck in, regardless of the fact that I am an MP. If I think someone is doing something wrong, I will tackle them in the street to stop the person beating up a woman, for example, and I have done so, because I think it is my job to do that, but other people tend to walk away, and I understand why, as it can be dangerous. We should adopt the non-legislative, community solution if there is one. I argue for more police, community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, because that, rather than giving the police more powers, is what prevents and deters crime and brings down criminality. 
 The Minister may have more accurate or up-to-date figures, but the most recent Home Office figures available to me show that fewer than one in six stops and searches led to an arrest. Five out of six people are likely to go away from that experience, possibly feeling aggrieved—

Graham Allen: They might be happy.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman may believe that people are happy to be stopped and searched, but I do not. When I was 20-something, I used to be stopped and searched regularly by the police when I was walking home after a day as a lawyer in chambers. I got off the bus in the Old Kent road and walked down the road I lived in, late at night, with a bag over my shoulder. I did not like being stopped and searched, and I became more aggrieved the more often it happened. Eventually, I stopped co-operating, because it was becoming oppressive. I would not give my name and address, because I did not think that the police had any cause to stop me.
 If I felt like that, how much more does it affect young people in our communities once they get on the police radar? That is when the issue becomes very sensitive; it is sensitive anyway in all communities, but it is especially so in minority communities. Of all the seats represented by my party, my constituency has the largest number of people from minority communities—about one in four—and the Solicitor-General, who represents the neighbouring constituency, has an even larger number. We must be very careful to have laws that command the confidence of the whole community, and police who practise in a way that commands such confidence. 
 The issue is relevant, because according to Home Offices figures published recently, black people are eight times more likely to be stopped than white people, and 19 per cent. of stops happen to black and Asian people, although they comprise only 7 per cent. of the population. It does not make the existence of the 
 power wrong or right, but we need to understand its implications and to be sensitive about them. I am keen in this, as in other matters, that we should introduce only powers that are justifiable. They should relate to situations in which it is clear that what is being carried is associated with criminality, or that there is an intention to use it in a criminal way. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, offensive weapons are self-defining, and the courts are well used to that. People generally know when they have them, although there are borderline cases: a rolling pin carried at night under a raincoat could be held to be an offensive weapon, although it was not—

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Would it be in order for you to stop and search the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for something relevant to the clause or the amendments?

Eric Illsley: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is completely in order, and if he strays out of order, I shall remind him.

Simon Hughes: I am surprised at that offensive interruption. I will always stay in order, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my word on that for the rest of our proceedings.
 Items made or adapted for criminal purposes are self-defining. The difficulty is the spray can. That is not made for a criminal purpose. It is not usually adapted for a criminal purpose. All the kids who spray near where I live and, I guess, in Beaconsfield, do not go to a special place and buy a special can; they buy a normal one. They do not adapt a can; they use a normal one for their graffiti. It is therefore relevant to debate this small amendment, the principle of which I accept. 
 It is important to draw the line in the right place. If somebody sets out to commit criminal damage and carries something that can be shown to be intended for that purpose, the police are justified in intervening, but they cannot do so on the basis of a hunch that is not backed up by evidence. They must have more than a view that because a group of kids that was hanging around on that street corner last week had spray cans, another group of kids—none of them the same—hanging around there this week must have spray cans. One has to be able to demonstrate a basis for stopping and searching people, because it is an intrusion on their civil liberties and should not be the norm. One has a right to go around without people interfering in one's activities. I do not want to live in a state, a country or a community in which the police have the power to take such action unless they have reasonable suspicion that I have something that I intend—or might intend—to use to commit a crime.

Marsha Singh: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, in any profession, people gain experience on the basis of which they sometimes cut corners and use intuition? We use the term ''usual suspects'' as though there is something wrong with it. They are the usual suspects because they are the usual culprits: they have done things wrong before and have been apprehended. Does he accept that local police officers with local knowledge of local troublemakers might be able to use their intuition and hunches in a proper manner?

Simon Hughes: Of course, and if the hon. Gentleman and I walked to my local police station, went behind the counter and into the back room, we would see a set of photographs of 10 or 20 usual suspects—the people most often picked up. Their appearance there, however, does not justify their ever being nicked unless the police have a specific belief that they are committing an offence at a particular time. Merely because the usual suspects have a criminal record, have been in trouble in the past or come from a family well known to the police, they should not be stopped unless they are doing—or appear to be about to do—something illegal at a particular moment on a particular street. That is my strong belief.

Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman has articulately provided a full account of the clause. I am glad that it is in order, and I should like to join in. If I can say it without being derogatory, he has expressed a white, lawyerly, middle-class, London-oriented view of the criminal justice system. It is the dominant view in the legal profession and the criminal justice system. Does he accept, though, that millions of traditionally law-abiding people no longer have any faith in it? I am thinking of the sort of ordinary working-class people on council estates in my constituency whose belief in his system has been eroded over time. We have lost such people, and he should reflect on how to recapture them and restore their faith.
 I refer not just to the civil liberty of individuals in particular circumstances, which we should all defend, but to reconnecting people to the entire system so that they feel that it works for, and belongs to, them. For many, the system is now in crisis. I hope that the Liberal Democrats and the other Opposition party will join the Government to improve the Bill and recapture the faith of the people.

Simon Hughes: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to increase confidence in the criminal justice system. I accept that it is at a lower level, but confidence in it should apply equally to the victim of crime or the defendant in a court case. Many of my constituents are victims one year and defendants the next, or vice versa. The poorer the community, the lower the income, the more likely are people to be both guilty of crimes and victims of them.
 I was not born and brought up in London. My parents were married here, but I was born in the north. We then moved to Wales. Before I was a lawyer, I was a student and a youth worker. I do not have an exclusively southern, London-oriented viewpoint. I happen to represent more council home occupiers than any MP in England, so more of my constituents than the hon. Gentleman's live on estates. I understand the score: I have done the job for more than 20 years. 
 It is a balancing exercise, about ensuring that everyone feels confident in the system. Making people feel resentful of the authorities because the system has treated them oppressively and unfairly will not assist the cause of criminal justice. We must secure the right balance. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will know exactly what I am talking about: it is a crucial issue for all the communities in Northern 
 Ireland. 
 I am not arguing in favour of the rights of the few against the many for the sake of it—the Prime Minister does not understand these issues—but because anyone could find himself in the few. The person living on the estate behind me might be burgled one day but the next day he might be knocking at my door because his kid has been unfairly nicked. I want to ensure that people have confidence that when they are burgled the police will respond and catch the burglar, but when their kid is wrongly stopped by the police he will be treated fairly by the system. That is the balance. I see no inconsistency. Defending the liberty of the defendant and the right to walk along the street without being stopped by the police unjustifiably is just as important to my constituent who is burgled as ensuring that the burglar is caught.

John Mann: I do not have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's 20 years in the House, but he is making a lot of assertions. I am still recovering from the fact that he was stopped and searched so often in his short pre-parliamentary lifetime. I worked in his constituency for eight years, and I was never stopped and searched once. [Hon. Members: ''Shame.''] The 20 photos were perhaps different.
 The point that I wish to make is that 95 per cent. of acquisitive crimes committed in my constituency are committed by drug addicts who maintain that their lifestyle requires intervention at every level. Much of that acquisitive crime is shoplifting. It takes place six or seven times a day, every day, other than Sunday when the shops are not open and burglary goes up. How does that fit in with the hon. Gentleman's concept of the victim and the non-victim? Secondly, those young people who are stopped repeatedly are also hassled by those same drug addicts for money. How does that equate with his concept of liberty and police intervention?

Simon Hughes: I guess that we will come back to that elsewhere. Here we are dealing with the powers given to the police, which is a different issue. I understand the hon. Gentleman's question. We are dealing with the powers that are given to people whose job is to protect people. That is what the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is about. The clause is about that issue. He raises a linked issue, which is about people's liberty to go about their business without being harassed by other people. I am sympathetic to that.
 People being harassed and intimidated by other citizens is equally unacceptable. It is a crime in many cases, and it needs to be dealt with. We need to ensure that our law and order agencies are more effective in dealing with that, but those are different issues. This is about what powers we give the police to stop people who are either committing an offence or going to commit an offence. I was keen that we do it on the basis of their reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed or is about to be committed.

Graham Allen: This is quite an important point. I tried to get it over to the Conservative spokesman and I will try again to get it over to the Liberal Democrat
 spokesman. The ''Gorblimey, Bill Sykes is a bit of a lad but he's one of us'' attitude is finished, certainly where I come from. We are not talking about someone who is in a bit of trouble here and there. We are talking about persistent, continuous offending that destroys people's lives. The hon. Gentleman talks about balance, but he does not talk about the other side of the equation. He talks about a person who might be an offender one week but a victim another. I do not recognise that picture. The picture I recognise is one in which more 90 per cent. of people are law-abiding and need the support of the criminal law. I admit that 10 per cent. may often perpetrate crimes on one another, but I do not mean it as a criticism when I implore him to help us find a way forward for the remaining 90 per cent. The rights of the 10 per cent. must also be safeguarded—I hope that what I said earlier shows that to be my belief—but we must start to consider what law-abiding people need from the criminal justice system.
 My hon. Friend the Minister must provide clarity and cross-referencing, otherwise the Bill will simply be another irrelevance to those law-abiding people who will feel that all the parties in Parliament have let them down once again.

Simon Hughes: We touched on these broad-ranging matters on Second Reading and before. They relate not only to legislation but to the use of existing powers, what the police do, whether they are efficient, what support they need and so on. Of course the law-abiding citizen needs to have the maximum protection against those who break the law. The hon. Gentleman and every other member of the Committee, including me, will have had surgery visits and correspondence from people who are concerned about the subject. I, too, have been stopped in the street by people expressing similar concerns.
 The hon. Member for Beaconsfield rightly made the point that not a single constituency, whatever its average income or ethnic make-up, is unaffected by the issue. I am no different from any of my colleagues, and claim no greater understanding of it. However, the real issues are what powers should be given to the police, and the basis of those powers. I understand the reasons for tabling amendment No. 1, but if they are answered by the traditional definition of theft, that is sufficient. I must say, however, that this is one case where it might be better to be explicit. 
 Amendment No. 27, too, would amend a complicated piece of legislation, so unfortunately, in some ways, we have started with something that is technical as well as substantive. That is no one's fault—it is simply the first issue to have been raised in the Committee. However, I am keen that the police officer carrying out a stop and search does not arrest people for possessing articles unless there is a reasonable suspicion, rather than a hunch, that those articles are obviously intended or adapted for use in a crime. That is important, and we are seeking to find a way of ensuring that the element of intention is included in the Bill. The drafting is not clear, but if the Minister can reassure us that the point about intention is covered, we will take the view that the law need not be amended. 
 I hope that members of the Committee realise that the point about liberty is important for the good of community relations, about which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) is as concerned as the rest of us. If we get the balance wrong, we risk the possibility of community relations becoming worse. That is why these difficult issues need sensitive consideration. I want a community in which my constituents, whatever their age or colour, believe that the police will take powers only when they need them and that they will treat all people equally. When that happens, we will have made huge progress.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has done the Committee a great service in opening the debate.
 Some people believe that criminal damage caused by graffiti is a low-level crime. I take the contrary view that it is a very serious crime. It breeds an atmosphere of criminality in estates and fear in communities. It also creates a fertile ground for other, more serious crimes to thrive. It blights many communities, and changes them from areas where one would want to live into areas not only where one would not want to live but where one would be frightened to live. It is an important issue, and a good starting point for our discussion of the Bill. 
 The Metropolitan police service is one of several organisations that welcome the extension in the clause and strongly support the inclusion of the power to search for items that could cause criminal damage. It believes that that has been an obvious omission from the search powers for many years, and that its inclusion will assist in the prevention of criminal damage and associated antisocial behaviour that blights so many communities. I say, ''Hear, hear'' to that. 
 Amendments Nos. 27 and 1 are probing amendments. I share the view expressed today by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that it has been the devil's own job to match up the sections and subsections of the Acts to which one needs to refer. More than once, I have felt myself to be entirely ignorant when I looked up a section of an Act referred to in the Bill and could not find a section with that number. Presumably, I needed to refer to other documents, but I have not had time to do that, and have had to do my best with what I have to hand. 
 I understand the basic point to be that a constable may search a person for anything that is a prohibited article. In section 1(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, an article is prohibited if it is an offensive weapon, but also if it is an article 
''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence . . . or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''
 My first difficulty is that subsection (8) refers to the offences to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies, but does not refer to subsection (7)(b)(ii). Will the Minister clarify that? 
 An article is prohibited if it is an article 
''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence''
 such as burglary or theft under section 12 of the Theft Act. Subsection (7)(b)(ii), however, refers to an article being 
''intended by the person having it with him for such use.''
 There is no link between that intention and the offences mentioned in subsection (8), and I wonder whether there should be such a link. That is the reason for the probing amendment No. 27. The question of what the articles might be that could be made or adapted for the purposes of criminal damage should also be examined carefully. 
 When the Minister spoke about amendment No. 1, he said that the offence of going equipped to steal was included under theft. Will he be more specific about that? Subsection (8) discusses the offences to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies but to which subsection (7)(b)(ii) does not. The first offence that it refers to is burglary. The second one is theft. Theft is defined under the Theft Act 1968 as appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it permanently and behaving dishonestly. When one is charged with theft in the Crown court, the indictment sets out the section and charges one with theft, and theft alone. Paragraph (c) deals with offences under section 12 of the Theft Act, which covers taking a motor vehicle without consent, commonly called TWOC, for the purposes not of stealing it but of joyriding. 
 Paragraph (d) refers to offences under section 15, which deals with obtaining property by deception. In reality, the offence of going equipped to steal is an offence under section 25 of the 1968 Act. That is a different offence. Where a person is not at his place of abode and has with him any article for use in the course of, or in connection with any burglary, theft or cheat, that person is subject to a charge under section 25 of the Theft Act. I hope that the Minister will say something about the issues surrounding going equipped to steal. Typically, someone goes equipped to steal from a car or from a motorbike, not from a property, because that would be burglary. A person who goes equipped to do that would, typically, have about their person, more keys than they should have, or a piece of wire. Hon. Members have no idea how many people appear in court for going equipped to steal with a piece of stiff wire or a coathanger. Those who know what they are doing can open 90 per cent. of cars with a wire coathanger in seconds. The Committee should ponder the relevance of those items in people's possession. I find it easier to say that someone who has 36 keys in his pocket, no vehicle and no front door may be about to commit the crime of going equipped to steal, although people also carry coathangers from dry cleaners. 
 We need to be clear about this. If someone is walking down the street with an aerosol can and a policeman thinks that he is about to commit an offence with it, can the policeman simply stop and search that person? Where is the requirement, if there is one, for some intention on the part of the person with the aerosol can to use it in connection with criminal damage? Ditto the person carrying the other 
 items that I mentioned. We must bear it in mind that the charge of going equipped to steal is entirely separate from theft, so it is hard to see how it can be included under the generic definition of theft. If it could be, the rest of the clause would not refer to other offences under the Theft Act. 
 I move on to robbery. I do not want to move into a fanciful world, but people can have all sorts of items with them for use in connection with robbery, which is not defined here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said so tellingly, all sorts of items can be carried about with the intention of committing all sorts of offences. The subject is slightly difficult. 
 All that I have tried to do is to point out to the Minister the question marks in my mind. I think that the Committee would appreciate a little clarification on the issue of intent. However, I would do less than my duty if I did not say how right the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was to recognise that the use of graffiti is becoming a terrible scourge. Any powers that we can sensibly give to the police to stop it would be well worth taking.

Hilary Benn: This has been a useful debate. We have covered all the ground on the clause in debating the amendment.
 The clause originates in the review of PACE that was undertaken and published earlier this year, as hon. Members will be aware. The hon. Member for Woking was right to say that there was a strong police request that stop-and-search powers be extended in such a way. The reason for the clause has been acknowledged in several contributions, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right when he said that in the end we were discussing a balance. In a sense, all police powers are an infringement on the liberty of the individual, but we decide to give the police certain powers in the interests of protecting the rights of others or of society as a whole. Therefore, one has to balance the impact that stop-and-search can have with the sheer misery caused by crime. The police are conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. 
 We should not question the interests of any member of the Committee as regards their constituents, whether they live in leafy suburbs or deprived inner-city communities. Many of my constituents do not have a lot of money and live in areas of great deprivation. They tend to experience more crime than those in the leafy suburbs, but it can occur in any part of the country. I would not want any member of the Committee to question the bona fides of any other. By all means, let us say that we do not think that the argument has been put correctly; by all means, let us say that we do not think that hon. Members have balanced correctly in their contributions the need to protect the rights of the individual against the need to protect people that we all represent from utter misery. The clause is about giving the police more power to protect those people. That is why we are trying to get the balance right. 
 In asking the Committee to resist the amendments, I want to explain why the points that have been 
 legitimately raised are covered by what the clause proposed, or would have other adverse consequences that probably were not intended by those who tabled them. I can tell the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Woking, in relation to the point about ''going equipped'' and robbery, that there is no need to add the offences suggested in amendment No. 1, as they are covered by the general reference to ''theft'' in section 1(8)(b) of PACE. 
 As for ''going equipped'', we are talking about items that will be made, adapted or intended for use for stealing—for theft. For that reason, the wording of section 1(7) of PACE makes the Government's view clear. We do not disagree with the intention that going equipped should be covered by stop-and-search powers, which is why we are firmly of the view that it is already covered by legislation. Similarly, those considerations apply in relation to robbery, which is defined as stealing with force or threat of force. 
 I remind the Committee that in exercising stop-and-search powers, police officers must have a reasonable suspicion. The PACE code of practice A describes the types of circumstances that can be taken into account. I refer hon. Members who wish to consider the matter in more detail to that document. 
 Amendment No. 27 is unnecessary, because the current stop-and-search framework set out in section 1 of PACE makes it clear that a constable can stop and search a person only if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find articles made or adapted for use in the course of, or in connection with, a relevant offence, or intended by the person having them for such use. The test is whether the item is made, adapted or intended for such use. That list currently applies to burglary, theft, offences under section 12 of the 1968 Act, and offences under section 15 of the 1968 Act. A new section 1(8)(e)—on criminal damage—will be added to PACE. Therefore, the point made in amendment No. 27 is already catered for. The amendment would also stop a constable from searching for articles specifically made or adapted for use in destroying or damaging property.

Dominic Grieve: I can see the force of what the Minister says. It seems that if the failure lies anywhere, it is with the way that PACE was originally drafted. The provisions were extremely opaque, and only as the debate proceeded did it become apparent to me what the Minister was trying to say. I cannot blame the Minister for that. However, it is rather unlikely that many items will be made or adapted. It is always likely that an intention will have to be shown, because of the very nature of the items under discussion.

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He rightly detected the thought processes that have gone on in the course of the debate. If the concern that he raised was correct, the existing parts of section 1(8) of PACE—burglary, theft and other offences—would not apply to the question of intention. That was clearly not intended. For opaque reasons that I do not pretend to understand fully, the advice is that such provisions apply. We can therefore safely add a new section 1(8)(e), which will deal with the problem of intent.
 As I am sure hon. Members acknowledge, everything will depend on the circumstances. A police officer who, for the sake of argument, entered railway premises at night where trains had been spray-painted—as happens regularly—and encountered two young people would have reasonable grounds both for suspicion and to stop and search, to see whether those people were carrying a can of spray paint. We shall of course have to rely on the discretion and common sense of police officers to apply the new law in that way. That is why the power would be welcome. 
 Finally, on Amendment No 71, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that no discourtesy was intended in relation to the previous debate. I must be more fleet of foot. He made many good points. He appears to have tried to draft an alternative approach to dealing with the problem about which he spoke with such passion. It is unfortunate that his amendment would only cover articles that had been used in the commission of such offences. Our proposed clause would cover items made, adapted or intended for such purposes, and would therefore be more useful to the police, enabling them to deal with the types of problem that, I am sure hon. Members recognise, cause our constituents distress. That is why I believe that the clause as currently drafted achieves the objective. 
 I hope that I have satisfied the Committee on the points that have been raised, and I would resist the amendments that have been debated.

Graham Allen: I thank the Minister for his careful and considerate reply. I also press him to write to me regarding the arguments that I advanced in the debate on the programme motion. It would be extremely helpful to put those points to rest.

Hilary Benn: I will.

Graham Allen: I am grateful for that reassurance. The Minister has been well probed and has responded to our promptings. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on
 the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Warrants to enter and search

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in
clause 2, page 1, line 14, after 'powers', insert 'and duties.'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
 No. 28, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
 No. 84, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 1, after second 'the', insert 'direct'.
 No. 4, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert 'and with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.'.
 No. 68, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end add 'and shall be subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures as apply to a constable.'.
 No. 3, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
'(2C) He shall be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier.'.
 No. 69, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
'(2C) any person so authorised shall be identified, together with his rank or office and his place of business or employment, to the owner or person in charge of the premises concerned.'.
 No. 91, in 
schedule 1, page 152, line 28, after first 'the', insert 'direct'.

Humfrey Malins: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 2, 4, 3 and 28. The clause extends the existing range of warrants to give an authorised person who accompanies a police officer the same powers as that officer. Amendment No. 2 would insert ''and duties'' after the word ''powers'' and amendment No. 28 would omit the extension of the power to the execution of the warrant. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are probing amendments; they suggest that the person accompanying the officer should have a duty to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier. Likewise, such a person would need the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.
 The issue of warrants is a difficult area for the courts. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that my experience in that regard makes me slightly concerned about giving very broad powers to an authorised person accompanying an officer. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a warrant to enter and search premises can be executed by any constable and such a warrant may authorise persons to accompany any constable executing it. Little or nothing else is said about the accompanying person. 
 Referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I picked up a copy of PACE and found what I was talking about in section 16. I then looked at ''Archbold'' and a photostat of section 16, and found that that covered something else completely, and that I needed section 10. I hope to goodness that they are both relevant. 
 Now, picture the scene: Bow Street magistrates court on any Friday—in my rare moments away from my constituency, I sit there as a district judge. An application is made for a warrant. Before the district judge comes an officer who lays before him the information that a warrant is necessary in relation to certain premises because it is believed that there are drugs or documents involving a financial swindle there. Accompanying the information are sufficient details to enable that judge to form a view as to whether the warrant should be issued. It is no good a policeman turning up and saying, ''I apply for a 
 warrant for these premises,'' because the answer will be, ''Go away. You can't have one,'' unless that policeman has details of the basis on which the warrant is sought. 
 Every district judge or magistrate carefully examines an application for a warrant and, if satisfied, grants it. Every district judge or magistrate knows that under PACE the police occasionally take with them someone who is authorised. Our probing amendments try to put a dampener on the clause because it gives the accompanying person and the police officer the same powers. I understand that a policeman has large powers in respect of the warrant—for example, the ability to force entry if required and the ability when inside the premises to seize and confiscate items. Constables are in a unique position; they are given authority by the citizen. We should know what we are doing before we allow the clause to give the accompanying person the same powers as the constable in a blanket fashion. There are reasons why that is important. 
 My first question to the Minister is, who can be an authorised person under proposed new section (2A)? I am informed in various briefings that it is likely to be an IT specialist, for example, who may be dealing with a computer-related offence. Is there an exhaustive list? Are those who are not fully fledged constables but are part of the community police force—my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will correct me if I use the wrong term—to be included and given the same powers?

Dominic Grieve: Support officers.

Humfrey Malins: There we are: support officers. Are they to be given the same powers? Are they, in short, to be authorised persons? Will the court have any say now in who the authorised person is to be? When the judge gives the police officer the ability to execute a warrant, he gives it to that officer based on the officer's deposition to the court and on his unique status as one of Her Majesty's constables. Would not a court ask, or want to know, if a warrant is to be executed in future, who the officer will take with him or her as an authorised person? Do the Government have any plans to ensure that an application for a warrant to a district judge or magistrate includes the information that the applicant seeks to take so-and-so as an authorised person? Will there be judicial permission or not, or will the matter bypass the courts?
 What limit will there be on the category of people being dealt with? At the officer's discretion, can it be a solicitor, an accountant, a friend or a passer-by because the officer is frightened, or anybody or no one? That is the point of these probing amendments, especially the important amendment No. 2, which would add the words ''and duties''. When that is linked with amendment No. 3, there is a compelling case for the Government to accept the amendment. 
 The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, on which I made my maiden speech in 1983, states: 
''Where the occupier of premises which are to be entered and searched is present when a constable seeks to execute a warrant''—
 and then—this is critical—it lists the duties on the officer. There must be duties—it would be nonsense if 
 there were not. There are such duties under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The officer must identify himself to the occupier, and, if not in uniform, must produce to him documentary evidence that he is a constable. Furthermore, he shall produce the warrant to him and give him a copy. That is an obvious thing for an officer to do—hence our amendment, which would oblige the person authorised to accompany the officer to carry evidence of identity and produce it to the occupier. It is similar to the current requirement applying to the officer himself. 
 Amendment No. 4 would provide that in addition to exercising the relevant powers only in the company and under the supervision of a constable, the person concerned would also need to do so 
''with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer''.
 That is a way of suggesting to the Minister that a slightly higher level of police involvement and authority should be used. 
 The Minister should take on board the need for the same duties for the authorised person, and the same requirement to identify himself or herself, as apply to the officer. Perhaps he could go further and say whether, if the officer has powers to seize documents and, as an officer must from time to time, act with force, the authorised person has those powers? That is an interesting and troubling situation. The authorised person is not a constable of Her Majesty. The point needs to be examined. 
 I assume, but am ready to be corrected if I am wrong, that if a police officer, in executing a warrant, goes over the top and does something wrong, there is insurance cover applying to Her Majesty's force. What would be the position of an authorised person—a solicitor or accountant who just happened to be authorised by someone to go in and do exactly what the policeman was doing? If I were an accountant, asked by the police to go and carry out those duties, I should want to check my insurance policy before I stepped outside my house. 
 I have another point to raise, although I do not expect the Minister to answer it today. If he can respond to this one, he is very fast on his feet. He is, of course. However, I want to mention in passing the case of Funke v. France. He thinks that I am pulling his leg. It is that time of year. I cannot tell the Committee how the case came to my attention, because I have forgotten. It was more than two days ago, and by mistake it came to my attention. I am quite sure that those advising him will look it up straight away. I am sure, indeed, that they will know all about it. 
 The case was brought to the European Court of Human Rights. I do not think that it is exactly on all fours with what we are considering, and it will probably be distinguished from it, but a serious point arises from it. The case relates to the remedy that individuals have in relation to their own premises when those are invaded—or entered—by various officers of the law or Customs, and what they do, what they take, and how they behave. 
 You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Illsley, that I do not intend to read out all 34 extraordinarily boring pages. This is a 1993 case, and to cut a long story short, Mr. and Mrs. Funke lived in France—which explains, I think, why the case is called Funke v. France. Various Customs officers stormed in and took a lot of documents. Mr. Funke died in due course, but his widow was permitted to carry on with an action that was so grievously complex that I have not the slightest idea what she was getting at. 
 In short, the action related to article 8 of the convention, which states that although everyone has the right to respect for his private life and correspondence, there may be interference by a public authority with the exercise of that right, so long as it is in accordance with the law and amounts to a measure that is necessary in a democratic society, inter alia in the interests of the economic well-being of the country or for the prevention of disorder or crime. That is fine. We can all understand that, so I shall get straight to the point. 
 At the end of the case, I believe that there was a finding that article 8 had been breached in relation to the private life and correspondence. That is relevant to the extent that we in this country have a system whereby the police and Customs seek a warrant and behave in a certain way. That is fine, because we entrust them with that, but could have the Minister and his officials taken on board the position whereby we give hugely extended powers to those who are not constables or Customs officers. Is that entirely safe from a possible attack under the convention? I simply do not know, so I have posed the question. I am terribly pleased that the Minister is nodding as though he thinks that I have made a sage point.

Graham Allen: I very much welcome the clause, in the same way that people in the criminal justice system in Nottinghamshire warmly welcome it. However, we have a couple of concerns, which my hon. Friend the Minister might allay. Yet again, we are talking, quite rightly, about extending a power, but we need to be clear about the defence that individuals may have in relation to an abuse of that power. It is none the less important that the warrants to enter and search have the capability outlined by the clause.
 It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Woking. We always thought that he was funky, and he has proved it this morning. However, he should keep an eye on people who table amendments through or for him. I am thinking in particular of amendment No. 4, which goes against the spirit of what the clause and indeed the Bill are trying to achieve by making the processes speedier where appropriate and where possible. The amendment would require a chief inspector or more senior officer to sign off the warrants, which goes against what I hope he would endorse as the good objective of trying to speed up the process, rather than pushing it up the chain of command in the police force and imposing yet more red tape and bureaucracy when the police are trying to do their job. I hope that he agrees that that is a good objective and will not press the amendment. 
 The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point that I was going to make about the use of force. Are people 
 who go along on a search expected or empowered to use force in the same way as the police? It would be helpful for the Minister to place their status on the record. The two amendments that I tabled are about the hangers-on, if I may use that term. I am thinking less about the civilians whom the police employ than about civilians who are not employed by the police but may be at the scene. They need safeguards almost as much as the person being searched does. 
 The hon. Gentleman mentioned a difficulty with insurance, which I had not thought of. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee or write to hon. Members about that. 
 I believe that we need also a clear code of practice for those civilians who are not directly employed by the police. I hope that the Minister can put that into the public domain an appropriate point, so that those people's rights are covered, as well as the rights of those being searched. 
 I am sure that hon. Members can think of many examples. One that occurs to me is of a television crew accompanying the police on a raid because the police want to show pictures of a drugs bust. A more appropriate example would be someone employed by the police to take some pictures for evidential use. There must be many other sorts of people involved in that sort of activity.

Marsha Singh: In discussing who those authorised people might be, the example of bailiffs comes to mind. I do not know what codes of conduct govern their powers, but is there not a similarity?

Graham Allen: That is a good point. I cannot answer it, but the Minister may be able to do so. Other hon. Members may be able to think of people who might tag along on an operation, all for good reasons, who should be covered. I ask my hon. Friend whether this is not an appropriate point for a code of practice for such people.
 Any person authorised by the police to accompany them on a search should be identified, with their rank or office, to the owner of the property or the person being searched. People should know, when a crowd comes into a house or premises, who the heck all those people are who are storming into the front room, especially as the person being searched may not be charged, arrested or convicted. It is only fair that the person whose privacy is invaded should know who those people are. 
 Apart from those two question marks, I hope that the Minister will accept a strong welcome on behalf of those in Nottinghamshire who are interested in the matter. It is a helpful clause and I wish it a fair wind. Given those reassurances, I shall not seek to press amendments Nos. 68 and 69 to a vote.

Simon Hughes: This is another important clause, but the amendments can be dealt with fairly quickly. Amendments Nos. 84 and 91 are intended to probe the understanding of direct supervision. Does the person concerned have to be with the constable, or could he be apart or separated from him, and would they have
 to be in communication by radio walkie-talkie? How much supervision should there be? Is there case law for it? Is there any understanding? Is there any statutory basis for the meaning of supervision? Technically, the Minister, I or anyone else could be supervising someone who was 100 miles away, but the supervision would be minimal. We need to ensure that we are not going down that road.
 The Minister will know that we are supportive of many of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. It is right that we should include the words ''and duties''. Those who have powers must also have duties to go with them. If the Government seek automatically to give those who accompany constables such powers—the present law says that the powers for the additional person are given when the warrant is issued—it seems to me that they should also have the duties.

David Kidney: This is a continual theme. Why does the person who accompanies the police officer have to have duties if he is under the supervision of that police officer? Many people seem not to have turned over the page to read that. He is there because he is accompanying the police officer in the execution of the warrant in new subsection (2A). Surely all the duties are on the police officer who is supervising him.

Simon Hughes: This is important. Let us take the following case. Several police officers with people under their supervision go into a house, a factory or a goods yard and the police officer in charge says, ''Right, guys, I want you to go and look for notebooks.'' They all go off separately, although they will be under the supervision of the police officer because he gave them their task. An hour or two later they will all meet up again. They may do all sorts of things while they are on their own. It seems to me that they have duties to the person whose premises are being searched, who may never see the police officer, but only the person who accompanies him.
 That touches on the bigger issue. This is an invasion of privacy. The cliché is that an Englishman's home is his castle. We are talking about men and women, English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh and every other nationality here, and people's homes, offices and factories should not be invaded by others without permission. The first exception to that is if a warrant has been obtained, and the magistrates must satisfy themselves about that. The second exception is when there is a power in the law to go in without a warrant. Such powers should be granted sparingly. The number of people who have those powers should be limited. They are not limited. There are huge numbers of people with the power to go into our houses. It is not just police and Customs officers, but people who work for the Inland Revenue and every quango in the country. There are far too many people who can invade other people's activities. 
 Will the Minister tell us who has these powers to give a warrant to a constable? What are the categories of people who might be able to be authorised? It is an extension of the question that was asked a moment or 
 so ago. Are we increasing the power only in relation to those who are accompanying a constable? The law appears to say that we are not giving additional powers to someone who accompanies a tax inspector or a Customs and Excise official. I hope that we are clear that this power is only for people who accompany a police constable, not for one of that great army of people who may invade our homes. 
 Amendment No. 28 would take away the power of the execution of the warrant from the accompanying person. That seems right. The execution of the warrant should be in the power of the constable—the person who is accountable before the law. The IT expert, the forensic science expert or the DNA expert or anyone else should not be responsible for executing the warrant. We are always complaining that our constituents have people knocking on their doors and they do not know who they are. They need to know whether people are from the council or the water board. We always tell older people to guard against opening the door to unauthorised people. We must be consistent. We must ensure that the person who executes the warrant is a uniformed police officer or can prove that he is a police officer. That seems perfectly proper. 
 Amendments Nos. 4 and 3 are also important. A junior officer could haul in an extra group of people only with the written consent of someone at senior level, which gives the public extra protection. Amendment No. 3 would require any such person to carry evidence of identity, and to produce it on request. We cannot have people wandering around the houses and business premises of Britain without that proper identification. The amendment is similar to amendments Nos. 68 and 69. Amendment No. 69 would ensure the ability to identify, and amendment No. 68 would ensure that the person is subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures. The Liberal Democrats support both those amendments. 
 These important matters relate to the liberty of the citizen in their home, their right to privacy and the right not to have people entering their home without authority. I hope that the Minister will reassure us by being sympathetic to the amendments and answering the perfectly reasonable questions that they pose. At this stage, I presume that this will be an exercise in probing. However, these are issues that hon. Members will want to raise again on Report if they do not receive satisfactory answers now. We must know what we are doing, and the citizen must know exactly who has the power to do what on their doorstep or in their home.

Dominic Grieve: I simply add this to the comments made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking: I doubt that any member of the Committee disputes that a search warrant must be carried out as efficiently as possible. If that requires the presence and active participation of others who are not police officers, I, for one, will not be troubled as long as the buck stops with the police.
 The difficulty of the clause, and the reason for the Conservative amendments and the similar amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is that 
 section 16(2) of PACE authorises persons to accompany any constable who is executing a warrant. There is no difficulty in individuals being present who are not constables. The next question is what is the intention behind the new subsection, which gives the direct impression that the buck will still stop with the police, who must supervise what is going on, but also purports to extend the powers of those who accompany the officer to be identical to his. 
 Members of the Committee need an answer from the Minister about how this is supposed to work in practice. It is perfectly acceptable to provide extra protection in an area of doubt. Does accompaniment simply mean that the man merely has to stand there and make suggestions to the officer rather than involve himself? If so, I can understand the logic of that. I must say, however, that the wording suggests that the person is, in effect, given a free ticket to act exactly as the officer does on those premises, including breaking in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said. 
 I have the gravest reservations about giving the person breaking-in powers of any sort. In relation to what the person does on the premises, I can see the force and legitimacy of his being able to download computer files and carry out specialist activities, but supervision is key. The word ''supervision'', as I understand it, could mean that no one else who is present and close to him when he is carrying out such activities is an officer. It bothers me if that will be the upshot of the provisions. 
 My hon. Friend rightly made the point about insurance. If I were a solicitor or an IT specialist, I would want my insurance cleared up. Most importantly, who has responsibility? Is it the chief constable? In the case of misfeasance, will an action lie against a chief constable or not? I assume that it would, but it would be useful for the Minister to confirm that that is the case, and that there is no ambiguity in the matter. 
 We seek the Minister's reassurance on some issues, but on one or two matters we may need more than reassurance, because I am not persuaded that the wording is no wider than it needs to be. Effectively, we are asking the Minister to think again and return to the matter later.

Hilary Benn: This has been a helpful debate, and I shall attempt to respond to all the issues.
 As the hon. Gentleman rightly divined, the intention of the clause is to enable the person accompanying a police officer to do more than at present, which is to stand and give advice. An obvious example might be examining a computer to find evidence of child pornography. Some expertise might be required to access the files and find encoded or encrypted information. All police constables might not have that expertise, so it is entirely sensible for the policeman to be accompanied by someone who does. Rather than have him standing there saying, ''Press return,'' it is much more sensible to allow the expert to sit and do the searching. That is the purpose behind the clause, and the change arises out of the PACE review. 
 May I first deal with the questions about authorisation asked by the hon. Member for Woking? Authorised persons for these purposes will be those authorised to accompany the constable by being named on the warrant. In other words, they are known at the point when the magistrate or the judge grants the warrant. The Police Reform Act 2002 gives powers to investigating officers—people employed by police authorities—to apply for and execute warrants. Only the civilians who need to be named on the warrant will be specifically identified. 
 The hon. Member for Woking made a fair point about Funke v. France because all these powers are subject to challenge in respect of the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. The honest answer is that no one knows for sure where the application of the convention, which can be tested against what Parliament has framed as legislation, will lead. The Bill has certainly been drafted to be compliant with the Human Rights Act and the convention. I am grateful to him for informing us of the case, not least for its delightful title, though its circumstances sound rather sad. 
 I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North for his support. If he is agreeable, I shall write to him on the question of insurance. I can also tell him and the hon. Member for Woking that civilians accompanying police officers will not be permitted to use force. They cannot, for example, kick in the door. The only exception will apply to investigating officers who, under the new power in the Police Reform Act 2002, are allowed to apply for and execute the warrant.

Humfrey Malins: But the Bill as it stands allows the authorised person to use force to get in, so how does it prevent someone from acting in that way?

Hilary Benn: The answer is section 117 of PACE—

Humfrey Malins: Sorry if I have wasted time.

Hilary Benn: No, not at all. I did not know either, but I do now.
 I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that his point does not apply to tax inspectors. He raised a legitimate issue about the circumstances in which agents of the state are allowed to enter premises, but the changes relate only to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 
 The trouble with amendment No. 28 is that it would deny the person authorised to accompany a constable in executing a warrant the relevant powers linked to the execution process. Given that the precise purpose of the clause is to enable the person actively to participate, the amendment is unhelpful, and I ask the Committee to reject it if it comes to a vote. Indeed, I ask the Committee to reject all the amendments, although I am not unsympathetic to the points that lie behind them, as I shall explain in a moment.

Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister will soon deal with my question about direct and indirect supervision. On amendment No. 28—
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.